FATHER FILES FOR AN INTERIM PARENTING ORDER SEPARATING THE CHILDREN DUE TO ELDEST CHILD’S BEHAVIOR
PARISI & ZEIN
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
[2020] FamCA 587
This case is an application for an #Interim parenting order concerning the children of the parties.
FACTS:
Mr Parisi (the father) lives on the outskirts of metropolitan Melbourne whereas Ms Zein (the mother) and the two children live in an inner suburb. Also, the eldest child, who is currently 13 years of age is exhibiting concerning behavioral traits creating for each parent major problems when that child is in his or her care.
Mr Finn, the Independent Children’s Lawyer, sought professional advice from an experienced clinical psychologist, Dr B, who provided a report dated 14 July 2020, recommending the separation of the two siblings. Dr B reported that the eldest child needs to be kept safe and that the eldest child’s trajectory indicates behavior leading to the juvenile justice system. The eldest child does not want to live with her father and is rebellious and combative towards her parents.
The father supported Dr B’s recommendation saying that the children need some time apart and some respite from the existing conflict in the family home. On the other hand, the mother doubted the accuracy of Dr B’s report, contending that the report was inaccurate, that Dr B was not impartial, and that the report did not reflect what was happening in the children’s and the parents’ lives. The mother said Dr B did not address in her report the mother’s concerns about family violence and the source of the children’s trauma. The mother sought an order for sole parental responsibility.
The ICL supported the recommendations made by Dr B, stating that removing the youngest child from the presence of the eldest child reduces any risk from the aggressive behavior of the eldest child.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court should grant the interim parental order separating the children from each other based on the findings of Dr B and recommendation of the ICL.
HELD:
The Court proposed to fix this proceeding for trial as a matter of urgency and for all issues to be tested at trial. The ICL will advance the interests of the children separately from the representation of the parents.
The Court did not make orders as proposed by Dr B, and the ICL as doing so would orchestrate undue chaos in the children’s lives. The status quo must prevail. All orders presently remain in force until the trial.
The present COVID-19 pandemic is creating its complications for this family. The Court recognized the burden under which the mother is laboring and how the father, by sheer dint of his distance from the mother and the children, is removed from the day-to-day burden under which the mother is operating. The Court ordered that any uncooperative attitude must stop at once in the interests of getting this case on for trial and doing what must be done to achieve that end.